Empatia e impulsividade sexual entre estudantes de medicina que enviam imagens íntimas de parceiros
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.v30.9967Palavras-chave:
Sexting, Estudantes Universitários, EmpatiaResumo
Introdução: A prática de sexting entre estudantes de Medicina tem sido pouco estudada. Embora existam diversos tipos de comportamento envolvendo a troca de imagens sexuais, dois cenários serão examinados aqui: (a) a troca de imagens íntimas somente entre parceiros eróticos; e (b) o compartilhamento de imagens íntimas trocadas por parceiros para outras pessoas fora do relacionamento.
Objetivo: Verificar diferenças empáticas entre aqueles que praticam sexting dentro de um relacionamento consensual e os que, de forma não consensual, disseminam imagens íntimas do(a) parceiro(a) para terceiros.
Método: Trata-se de um estudo transversal no qual os participantes responderam a um questionário auto-responsivo. Inventários para avaliação de empatia e impulsividade sexual, questionário sobre dados sócio-demográficos e questões sobre a prática de sexting foram aplicados.
Results: Este estudo incluiu 202 estudantes de Medicina. O grupo que admitiu engajar-se em sexting, independentemente se consensualmente ou não, demonstrou maior impulsividade sexual e menor desconforto do que aqueles que negaram a prática. Apenas os estudantes que admitiram compartilhar imagens íntimas do(a) parceiro(a) mostraram menor preocupação empática (empatia afetiva) e tomada de perspectiva (empatia cognitiva) do que o grupo que negou praticar sexting. Os resultados deste estudo apoiam prévios achados em que pessoas engajadas em sexting demonstram menor desconforto pessoal com suas ações do que aqueles que não praticam.
Conclusão: Apesar de conhecer as consequências legais de expor imagens íntimas de terceiros sem consentimento, alguns estudantes parecem preferir o risco.
Referências
2. Freitas D. The happiness fffect. How social media is driving a generation to appear perfect at any Cost. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.
3. Chalfen R. 'It's only a picture' : Sexting, "smutty" snapshots and felony charges. Visual Studies. 2009;24(3):258-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860903309203
4. Strassberg DS, McKinnon RK, Sustaita MA, Rullo J. Sexting by high school students: an exploratory and descriptive study. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(1):15-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9969-8
5. Gordon-Messer D, Bauermeister JA, Grodzinski A, Zimmerman M. Sexting among young adults. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):301-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.013
6. Shariff S. Sexting and Cyberbullying: Defining the line for digitally empowered kids. New York: Cambridge Press, 2015.
7. Benotsch EG, Snipes DJ, Martin AM, Bull SS. Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):307-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
8. Reyns BW, Burek MW, Henson B, Fisher BS. The unitended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization. J Crim Just. 2013;36(1):1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.641816
9. Dake JA, proce JH, Maziarz L, Ward B. Prevalence and correlates of sexting behavior in adolescents. Am J Sex Educ. 2012;7(1):1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2012.650959
10. Ferguson CJ. Sexting behaviors among young Hispanic women: Incidence and association with other high-risk sexual behaviors. Psychiatr Q. 2011;82(3):239-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-010-9165-8
11. Delevi R,Weisskirch RS. Personality factors as predictors of sexting. Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(6):2589-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.003
12. Dir AL, Coskunpinar A, Steiner JL, Cyders MA. Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, relationship status, and sexual identity, and the role of expectancies in sexting. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2013;16(8):568-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0545
13. Gamez-Guadix M, Santisteban P, Resett S. Sexting among Spanish adolescents: Prevalence and personality profiles. Psicothema. 2017;29(1):29-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.222
14. Melchers MC, Li M, Haas BW, Reuter M, Bischoff L, Montag C. Similar personality patterns are associated with empathy in four different countries. Front Psychol. 2016;7:290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00290
15. Bernstein JY, Watson MW. Children who are targets of bullying: a victim pattern. J Interpers Violence. 1997;41(2):483-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/088626097012004001
16. Çelík S, Atak H, Erguzen A. The effect of personality on cyberbullying among University Students in Turkey. Eur J Educ Res. 2012;(49):129-50.
17. Gibb ZG, Devereux PG. Who does that anyway? Predictors and personality correlates of cyberbullying in college. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;38:8-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.009
18. Goodboy AK, Martin MM. The personality profile of a cyberbully: Examining the Dark Triad. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;49:1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.052
19. Davis MH, Hull JG, Young RD, Warren GG. Emotional reactions to dramatic film stimuli: the influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(1):126-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.1.126
20. Sampaio LR, Guimarães PRB, Camino CP S, Formiga NS, Menezes IG. Estudos sobre a dimensionalidade da empatia: Tradução e adaptação do Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Psico. 2011;42(1):67-76.
21. Carnes PJ, Hopkins TA, Green BA. Clinical relevance of the proposed sexual addiction diagnostic criteria: relation to the Sexual Addiction Screening Test-Revised. J Addict Med. 2014;8(6):450-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0000000000000080
22. Silva RASA, Baltieri DA. A Preliminary Model of Motivation for Pornography Consumption Among Men Participating in Zoophilic Virtual Environments. J Sex Marital Ther. 2016;42(2):143-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2014.996930
23. Davis MH. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;4491):113-26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
24. Tabachnick BG, Fidel LS. Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.
25. Carlo G, Mestre MV, McGinley MM, Samper P, Tur A, Sandman D. The interplay of emotional instability, empathy, and coping on prosocial and aggressive behaviors. Pers Individ Dif. 2012;53(5):675-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.022
26. Mooradian TA, Davis M, Matzler K. Dispositional empathy and the hierarchical structure of personality. Am J Psychol. 2011;124(1):99-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.124.1.0099
27. Song Y, Shi M. Associations between empathy and big five personality traits among Chinese undergraduate medical students. PloS One. 2017;12(2):e0171665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171665
28. Akhtar S. Narcissistic personality disorder. Descriptive features and differential diagnosis. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1989;12(3):505-29.
29. Baskin-Sommers A, Krusemark E, Ronningstam E. Empathy in narcissistic personality disorder: From clinical and empirical perspectives. Personal Disord. 2014;5(3):323-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000061
30. Massey-Abernathy A, Byrd-Craven J. Seeing but not feeling: Machiavellian traits in relation to physiological empathetic responding and life experiences. Adap Hum Behav Physiol. 2016;2(3):252-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-016-0041-0
31. Pohontsch NJ, Stark A, Ehrhardt M, Kotter T, Scherer M. Influences on students' empathy in medical education: an exploratory interview study with medical students in their third and last year. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(231). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1335-7
